R No 26 Is Served.

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi i/b. Miss Rutuja Ambekar for the Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No.10. CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2014. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the rival parities. 2 For the present, the controversy is only about Survey No.119/2/B. I quote paragraph 42 from the judgment of the lower appellate Court which reads thus : " From this purpose entries in 7/12 extract of land survey no.119 at Exh.265 for the year 194344 is also material to consider. This entry shows that land was acquired by military and Mahadu and Vishnu had taken the land for cultivation from military. Anyhow one thing is clear that land gat no.119 was acquired by the government and Mahadu and heirs of Vishnu had received that compensation as per their respective shares. If this is the position then it has to be said that tenancy rights of the family came to an end and land gat no.119 became the property of the government." 3 The observation made in paragraph 41 and paragraph 42 shows that the land had vested in the Government in its military department. The finding is based on the basis of mutation entries but there it is not clear as contended by Mr. Kudale nor it is substantiated by the documentary evidence that the Government had released the land after it had vested in it. The parties are at liberty to place the documents of release, if any, on record, since Second Appeal No.450 of 2014 is admitted for final hearing. However, looking at the finding in paragraph 42 as above, it appears prima facie that neither the appellant nor the respondent would be able to claim any right to go ahead with the construction on the said land or as the case may be without hearing the concerned Government. Hence I make the following order : ORDER i) The appellant to join the concerned Government as a party to the present Civil Application as well as Second Appeal and effect service before the next date. ii) Issue notice to the newly added party in both Second Appeal as well as Civil Application, returnable after vacation for hearing on this application. iii) Till the decision of the application finally the earlier order granting statusquo shall continue in operation. iv) S.O. for 6 weeks. (A. B. CHAUDHARI, J.) waghmare.

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr.Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms.Rutuja Ambekar for the applicants Mr.S.G.Kudle for the respondent No.10. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. DATED : 26/11/2014 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2 Liberty granted to the respondents to file their additional AffidavitinReply and serve copy on the other side. 3 Liberty granted to the applicants to file reply to the said affidavit, if they so desire and serve copy on the other side on or before the next date. 4 Stand over for two weeks. 5 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/b Rutuja Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for respondent no.10. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 15/12/2014. P.C.: . Not on board. At the request of Advocate for the respondent no.10, matter is taken on board for urgent orders. 2 Liberty granted to the applicant to serve unserved respondent by private notice either by registered post A.D. and/or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect. 3 Matter to appear on board on 23.12.2014. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders r Jud ge's or ders Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. R.P. Mr. R.P. Raghuvanshi i/b R.A. Ambekar for the i/b R.A. Ambekar for the applicant. Mr. S.G. Kudle for the respondent no.10. Ms. Jyotsna Pandi & P.S. Gujar for Union of India. CORAM : K. K. TATED, J. DATED : 23/12/2014. P.C.: . Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Appellant no.1 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav expired yesterday i.e. 22.12.2014. Hence, he requires some time to take appropriate steps for bringing her legal heirs on record. 3 On his request, matter adjourned to 19.01.2015. 4 Interim protection, if any, granted earlier to continue till next date. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and Ors. Applicants : V/S : Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. Respondents * * * * * Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w. Mr. Ratnesh Dube i/by. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, Advocate for respondent no.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, Advocate for respondents no.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for respondents no.26 and 27. * * * * * * Coram :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 11th February, 2015. P.C. :- 1). Adjourned for reply of the Government to 25th February, 2015. Copy of the affidavit-in-reply shall be furnished in advance to the appellant and other respondents. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 23: Chittewan 1/5 C.A.1021-14 O.O. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 170 OF 2015 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1021 OF 2014 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.450 OF 2014 R.N. Yadav @ Dhariya .. Applicant (Org.Respondent No.10) In the matter between Smt. Bhagirathi Haribhau Yadav and ors. .. Applicants/ Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s Dnyaneshwar Vishnu Kate and Ors. .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi a/w Ratnesh Dube i/b Ms Rutuja Ambekar, for Applicants. Mr. S.G. Kudle, for Respondent No.10. Mrs. Jyotsna Pandhi with Mr. P.S. Gujar, for Respondents No.21 to 25. Mr. Rajan Pawar, AGP for Respondents No.26 and 27. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 25th March, 2015 P.C. This is a common order on the above two Civil Applications. Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is taken out by the appellants for interim injunction to restrain respondent No.1 from dealing with or developing one of the suit properties i.e. the land at Survey No.119/2B of Pimple Saudagar, pending the disposal of the Second Appeal. Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is taken out by respondent No.10 for clarification that the adinterim order dated 08th October, 2014 passed on the Civil Application of the appellants is no more in operation in view of the subsequent order dated 12th December, 2014. The other relief sought by respondent No.10 is to direct the appellants to file an undertaking in the form of bank guarantee to the effect that in the event respondent No.10 succeeds in the appeal, the appellants will compensate him for the losses suffered on account of delay in the decision in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal arises out of the suit filed by the appellants for partition of the joint family properties. The appeal was admitted on 06th August, 2014 with observations that prima facie it appears that there was no reason for the Appellate Court to exclude properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from partition and separate possession. These two properties are claimed to have been purchased by respondent No.10 from respondent No.1 by the sale deed dated 09th June, 1983. The Lower Appellate Court has recorded a finding that the properties had been owned jointly by Vishnu, Laxman and Mahadev. Respondent No.1 is the son of Vishnu. In view of this factual position, the Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : Whether the appellate Court was right in excluding Survey No.119/2B and 18/7 from the partition and separate possession ? Whether learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.10 waives service of the notice ? It appears that during pendency of the proceedings, some portion of the properties came to be acquired by Government of India. Therefore, by order dated 08th December, 2014, the appellants were directed to amend the Civil Application to implead the concerned parties. Accordingly, amendment was carried out and seven persons were impleaded to the Civil Application. They are (1) Union of India, (2) Director General, Defence Estate, (3) Principal Director, Defence Estate, (4) Defence Estate officer, Southern Command, (5) Commanding Officer, Southern Command, (6) State of Maharashtra and (7) The Collector of Pune. The interim relief in operation during pendency of the suit was direction to respondent No.10 to maintain statusquo in respect of the properties at Survey No.119/2B and 18/7. This order has been continued with observation that if respondent No.10 is allowed to deal with the properties or carry out the construction, the same would lead to further complication which should be avoided. Mr. Kudgle, the learned advocate for respondent No.10 submits that the order dated 23rd December, 2014 passed this Court, is no longer in operation since the same has not been specifically continued. He also submits that respondent No.10, who had purchased the properties as far back as in the year 1983 is unable to enjoy the properties purchased by him. Considering the nature of the substantial questions of law framed, properties in question need to be preserved in the same condition during pendency of the Second Appeal. Hence, the Civil Application No.1021 of 2014 is allowed and Civil Application No.170 of 2015 is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)